Vermeer Theorem of Whore Drama
- Thread starter vermeer
- Start date
From dictionary dot com
"2 entries found for whoremonger.
whore·mong·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôrmnggr, -mng-, hr-)
n.
A whoremaster.
[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
whoremonger
n 1: a prostitute's customer [syn: whoremaster, john] 2: a pimp who procures whores [syn: whoremaster]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University"
There are many words in the english language that have acquired secondary meanings that are opposite (or nearly so) to the original meaning and are perfectly acceptable use.
Case in point
MSD If you met a friend and he took one look at you and said "Man, that shirt you're wearing is really 'bad'. " Now would you take that as an insult or a compliment??
"2 entries found for whoremonger.
whore·mong·er ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôrmnggr, -mng-, hr-)
n.
A whoremaster.
[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
whoremonger
n 1: a prostitute's customer [syn: whoremaster, john] 2: a pimp who procures whores [syn: whoremaster]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University"
There are many words in the english language that have acquired secondary meanings that are opposite (or nearly so) to the original meaning and are perfectly acceptable use.
Case in point
MSD If you met a friend and he took one look at you and said "Man, that shirt you're wearing is really 'bad'. " Now would you take that as an insult or a compliment??
Traffic jam?
(emph. added)
Oxford English Dictionary DRAFT REVISION Sept. 2002
monger, n.1
1. a. A merchant, trader, dealer, or trafficker (freq. of a specified commodity); (from the 16th cent.) a person engaged in a petty or disreputable trade or traffic.
Sometimes short for an established compound such as cheesemonger (see sense 2), where the context makes this clear.
b. Short for WHOREMONGER n. Obs.
2. As the final element in compounds designating a dealer, trader, or trafficker in a particular commodity. (Now the principal use.)
Originally literally a trader, as cheese-, coster-, fish-, flesh-, ironmonger, etc.; but in formations dating from the 16th cent. also in extended use (freq. derogatory), as ceremony-, fashion-, mass-, merit-, news-, pardon-, scandal-monger, etc.
The more important compounds of both kinds are treated as main entries or under their first element; the following are examples of occasional or nonce-formations.
Oxford English Dictionary SECOND EDITION 1989
traffic, v.
I. Intransitive senses.
1. To carry on trade, to trade, to buy and sell; to have commercial dealings with any one; to bargain or deal for a commodity. Sometimes, To resort to a place for the purpose of trade: = TRADE v. 6a.
b. In a disparaging sense, or said of dealing considered improper: = TRADE v. 6c: cf. prec. 2d.
2. fig. To have dealings or intercourse (with a person); to carry on negotiations; to be concerned, to busy or exercise oneself (in some matter). Obs.
b. To have dealings of an illicit or secret character; to deal, intrigue, conspire (with some one, in, for, or to do something); to practise. (Cf. 1b.)
3. dial. (See 4b.)
II. Transitive senses.
4. To traverse or frequent for the purpose of trading; to carry on trade in (a place). Obs.
b. To pass to and fro upon, to frequent (a road, etc.); to traverse. Also intr. To pass to and fro, walk or run about. dial.
5. To carry on a trade in, to buy and sell; to dispose of (or acquire) in the way of trade; to deal in; often with sinister implication; in quot. 1879, to barter away. Also fig. Now rare.
6. To negotiate (a matter). Obs. rare.
Hence trafficking vbl. n. and ppl. a.
(emph. added)
Oxford English Dictionary DRAFT REVISION Sept. 2002
monger, n.1
1. a. A merchant, trader, dealer, or trafficker (freq. of a specified commodity); (from the 16th cent.) a person engaged in a petty or disreputable trade or traffic.
Sometimes short for an established compound such as cheesemonger (see sense 2), where the context makes this clear.
b. Short for WHOREMONGER n. Obs.
2. As the final element in compounds designating a dealer, trader, or trafficker in a particular commodity. (Now the principal use.)
Originally literally a trader, as cheese-, coster-, fish-, flesh-, ironmonger, etc.; but in formations dating from the 16th cent. also in extended use (freq. derogatory), as ceremony-, fashion-, mass-, merit-, news-, pardon-, scandal-monger, etc.
The more important compounds of both kinds are treated as main entries or under their first element; the following are examples of occasional or nonce-formations.
Oxford English Dictionary SECOND EDITION 1989
traffic, v.
I. Intransitive senses.
1. To carry on trade, to trade, to buy and sell; to have commercial dealings with any one; to bargain or deal for a commodity. Sometimes, To resort to a place for the purpose of trade: = TRADE v. 6a.
b. In a disparaging sense, or said of dealing considered improper: = TRADE v. 6c: cf. prec. 2d.
2. fig. To have dealings or intercourse (with a person); to carry on negotiations; to be concerned, to busy or exercise oneself (in some matter). Obs.
b. To have dealings of an illicit or secret character; to deal, intrigue, conspire (with some one, in, for, or to do something); to practise. (Cf. 1b.)
3. dial. (See 4b.)
II. Transitive senses.
4. To traverse or frequent for the purpose of trading; to carry on trade in (a place). Obs.
b. To pass to and fro upon, to frequent (a road, etc.); to traverse. Also intr. To pass to and fro, walk or run about. dial.
5. To carry on a trade in, to buy and sell; to dispose of (or acquire) in the way of trade; to deal in; often with sinister implication; in quot. 1879, to barter away. Also fig. Now rare.
6. To negotiate (a matter). Obs. rare.
Hence trafficking vbl. n. and ppl. a.
Forgetting about anything else, I think it's both disingenuous and poor logic/research/whatever to post a thesis based on a source, when that exact source contradicts your argument:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whoremonger
whoremonger
One entry found for whoremonger.
Main Entry: whore·mon·ger
Pronunciation: -"m&[ng]-g&r, -"mä[ng]-
Function: noun
: WHOREMASTER
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whoremaster
whoremaster
One entry found for whoremaster.
Main Entry: whore·mas·***
Pronunciation: -"mas-t&r
Function: noun
: a man consorting with whores or given to lechery
If someone doesn't find a source valid, they shouldn't be using it only for when it agrees with their argument. A broken clock is right twice a day. If you think the clock is broken, don't jump up twice a day and use it to try to prove what time it is. Using one source which you don't think is valid simply because it was easy to find and it agrees with your current argument is intellectual laziness and also shows that you don't vet your sources properly, and diminishes the weight of any future "evidence" you introduce when trying to prove points, because you've shown a willingness to use any source, even one's you yourself don't believe valid, simply because they agree with the point you are trying to make.
In addition, taking parts of words and trying to prove that the definition of the whole words must be consistent with the definitons of those parts of those words is just plain............
Still my favorite
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whoremonger
whoremonger
One entry found for whoremonger.
Main Entry: whore·mon·ger
Pronunciation: -"m&[ng]-g&r, -"mä[ng]-
Function: noun
: WHOREMASTER
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whoremaster
whoremaster
One entry found for whoremaster.
Main Entry: whore·mas·***
Pronunciation: -"mas-t&r
Function: noun
: a man consorting with whores or given to lechery
If someone doesn't find a source valid, they shouldn't be using it only for when it agrees with their argument. A broken clock is right twice a day. If you think the clock is broken, don't jump up twice a day and use it to try to prove what time it is. Using one source which you don't think is valid simply because it was easy to find and it agrees with your current argument is intellectual laziness and also shows that you don't vet your sources properly, and diminishes the weight of any future "evidence" you introduce when trying to prove points, because you've shown a willingness to use any source, even one's you yourself don't believe valid, simply because they agree with the point you are trying to make.
In addition, taking parts of words and trying to prove that the definition of the whole words must be consistent with the definitons of those parts of those words is just plain............
Still my favorite
You are wrong on both counts - linguistically speaking, of course.
While English does not generally make as strict a distinction between perfective and imperfective as Latin and the Romance languages do (although, the Russian/Slavic concept of aspect is a more apt construct here), both "I don't [habitually] copy" and "I didn't [in this instance] copy" are both gramatically correct, depending upon the thought being expressed. I think that lamont said what he meant - although I could be wrong on that. But in any event, he did not speak ungrammatically.
As for people, if it is used as the plural of "person" then lamont's use of 's is correct. The s' which you suggest would mean that "people" is a collective noun, as in the Iraqi people or the Jewish people or even ... the American people - plural in form but singular in meaning. Thus "peoples" would refer to two or more national/ethnic/whatever groups, and "some peoples' attitudes" would refer to attitudes held by two or more such groups. Again, I think lamont said precisely what he meant.
So maybe you should stick to what you know - which obviously does not include linguistics or English grammar.
While English does not generally make as strict a distinction between perfective and imperfective as Latin and the Romance languages do (although, the Russian/Slavic concept of aspect is a more apt construct here), both "I don't [habitually] copy" and "I didn't [in this instance] copy" are both gramatically correct, depending upon the thought being expressed. I think that lamont said what he meant - although I could be wrong on that. But in any event, he did not speak ungrammatically.
As for people, if it is used as the plural of "person" then lamont's use of 's is correct. The s' which you suggest would mean that "people" is a collective noun, as in the Iraqi people or the Jewish people or even ... the American people - plural in form but singular in meaning. Thus "peoples" would refer to two or more national/ethnic/whatever groups, and "some peoples' attitudes" would refer to attitudes held by two or more such groups. Again, I think lamont said precisely what he meant.
So maybe you should stick to what you know - which obviously does not include linguistics or English grammar.
Try Again
Didn't/Don't
When Lamont wrote "I don't copy from anyone" he was referring specifically to my post which noted his use of the lyric form for his poetic response to a previous post. Given this specific reference to something past tense, saying "I do not" copy -- which implies current action -- is incorrect. He should have said "I did not," thus preserving both the relevant tense (past) as well as its specific object (his utilization of the lyric form).
Person's/Peoples'
The reason why peoples' is correct and people's is not is because Lamont prefaced his use of people with "some" thereby making "people" plural or collective. Presumably, he meant people esposing what are commonly known as "racist" views. Whatever. The point is, he wasn't -- taking his words literally -- referring to just me in his response. Hence, "peoples'."
Slinky -- where do you get these guys ?
Didn't/Don't
When Lamont wrote "I don't copy from anyone" he was referring specifically to my post which noted his use of the lyric form for his poetic response to a previous post. Given this specific reference to something past tense, saying "I do not" copy -- which implies current action -- is incorrect. He should have said "I did not," thus preserving both the relevant tense (past) as well as its specific object (his utilization of the lyric form).
Person's/Peoples'
The reason why peoples' is correct and people's is not is because Lamont prefaced his use of people with "some" thereby making "people" plural or collective. Presumably, he meant people esposing what are commonly known as "racist" views. Whatever. The point is, he wasn't -- taking his words literally -- referring to just me in his response. Hence, "peoples'."
Slinky -- where do you get these guys ?
Last edited:
didn't/don't
It's more than just a little common to negate a declaration by asserting the universal of the negative. It's even logically consistant! In fact, it's kind of the logical equivalent of atomic warfare.
e.g. -
1: John's at the brothel.
2: No, John never goes to brothels.
1: You stole my candy.
2: No, I don't steal.
1: I am right.
2: You never have any idea what you're talking about.
peoples' / people's
"Some people's" is, of course, the possesive of "some people", while "some peoples'" is the possesive of "some peoples".
I always have a hard time with collective nouns, too, so let's rewite the senetence to see which noun phrase we need to decline into the possesive.
I was making a point about the attitudes of some people.
I was making a point about the attitudes of some peoples.
Now, perhaps, it is easier to see the needed word.
It's more than just a little common to negate a declaration by asserting the universal of the negative. It's even logically consistant! In fact, it's kind of the logical equivalent of atomic warfare.
e.g. -
1: John's at the brothel.
2: No, John never goes to brothels.
1: You stole my candy.
2: No, I don't steal.
1: I am right.
2: You never have any idea what you're talking about.
peoples' / people's
"Some people's" is, of course, the possesive of "some people", while "some peoples'" is the possesive of "some peoples".
I always have a hard time with collective nouns, too, so let's rewite the senetence to see which noun phrase we need to decline into the possesive.
I was making a point about the attitudes of some people.
I was making a point about the attitudes of some peoples.
Now, perhaps, it is easier to see the needed word.
One Last Stubborn Try
In an open-minded, non-aggressive effort to finally resolve this issue, let's look at the text of the original post by Lamont that triggered this debate and consider it against all that's been said:
Mackey,
I don't copy from anyone.
I was making a point about some people's attitudes.
Now, let's take each sentence separately:
I don't copy from anyone.
just me, I will admit, has a valid point.
It's more than just a little common to negate a declaration by asserting the universal of the negative. It's even logically consistant! In fact, it's kind of the logical equivalent of atomic warfare. e.g. - 1: John's at the brothel. 2: No, John never goes to brothels.
However, I still maintain that:
When Lamont wrote "I don't copy from anyone" he was referring specifically to my post which noted his use of the lyric form for his poetic response to a previous post. Given this specific reference to something past tense, saying "I do not" copy -- which implies current action -- is incorrect. He should have said "I did not," thus preserving both the relevant tense (past) as well as its specific object (his utilization of the lyric form).
Thus, while Lamont's use may have been permissible, it is not the best -- as in the clearest -- use and veers dangerously close to "I don't copy no motherfucking poem from no motherfucking bitch!," which, I think we can all agree, is a form of bastardized English known as Ebonics, e.g., "There are motherfucking snakes on the motherfucking plane." (Samuel Jackson's character in "Snakes on a Plane.")
As such, I think I was justified in pointing out to Lamont, in the interest of preserving the integrity of the English language (as well as underscoring his own lack of smarts) that it would be better to say "I didn't copy from anyone."
Either way, however, his denial of copying the lyric form is, in light of its temporal and spatial proximity to SA's post, ain't nuthin' but straight bullshit.
The next sentence:
I was making a point about some people's attitudes.
I have said that Lamont should have used the phrase "some peoples' attitudes." Some of you are not convinced.
I think we all agree that what Lamont specifically meant was: I was making a point about some Confederate flag-waving, Eisenhower-era Crackers who maintain racist attitudes, i.e., "some people."
According to justme's suggestion, this, then, would be right: I was making a point about some some Confederate flag-waving, Eisenhower-era Cracker's attitude.
But, since we agree that Lamont was referring to racists in general and not just me (wink-wink justme), it should be: I was making a point about some some Confederate flag-waving, Eisenhower-era Crackers' attitude.
Thus, "I was making a point about some peoples' attitudes."
In an open-minded, non-aggressive effort to finally resolve this issue, let's look at the text of the original post by Lamont that triggered this debate and consider it against all that's been said:
Mackey,
I don't copy from anyone.
I was making a point about some people's attitudes.
Now, let's take each sentence separately:
I don't copy from anyone.
just me, I will admit, has a valid point.
It's more than just a little common to negate a declaration by asserting the universal of the negative. It's even logically consistant! In fact, it's kind of the logical equivalent of atomic warfare. e.g. - 1: John's at the brothel. 2: No, John never goes to brothels.
However, I still maintain that:
When Lamont wrote "I don't copy from anyone" he was referring specifically to my post which noted his use of the lyric form for his poetic response to a previous post. Given this specific reference to something past tense, saying "I do not" copy -- which implies current action -- is incorrect. He should have said "I did not," thus preserving both the relevant tense (past) as well as its specific object (his utilization of the lyric form).
Thus, while Lamont's use may have been permissible, it is not the best -- as in the clearest -- use and veers dangerously close to "I don't copy no motherfucking poem from no motherfucking bitch!," which, I think we can all agree, is a form of bastardized English known as Ebonics, e.g., "There are motherfucking snakes on the motherfucking plane." (Samuel Jackson's character in "Snakes on a Plane.")
As such, I think I was justified in pointing out to Lamont, in the interest of preserving the integrity of the English language (as well as underscoring his own lack of smarts) that it would be better to say "I didn't copy from anyone."
Either way, however, his denial of copying the lyric form is, in light of its temporal and spatial proximity to SA's post, ain't nuthin' but straight bullshit.
The next sentence:
I was making a point about some people's attitudes.
I have said that Lamont should have used the phrase "some peoples' attitudes." Some of you are not convinced.
I think we all agree that what Lamont specifically meant was: I was making a point about some Confederate flag-waving, Eisenhower-era Crackers who maintain racist attitudes, i.e., "some people."
According to justme's suggestion, this, then, would be right: I was making a point about some some Confederate flag-waving, Eisenhower-era Cracker's attitude.
But, since we agree that Lamont was referring to racists in general and not just me (wink-wink justme), it should be: I was making a point about some some Confederate flag-waving, Eisenhower-era Crackers' attitude.
Thus, "I was making a point about some peoples' attitudes."
There's nothing more pathetic on this Board than a poster who has nothing left in a debate but to criticise an opponent's grammar.
What you're saying to everyone is that you lack the analytical reasoning skills to reply to Lamont with a logical argument.
What's even sadder is that the grammatical miscues you're trying so hard to point out out are vague at best. 'Some' logically refers to one maybe all, so the phrase "some people's attitudes" may have been referring to one person.
You're also unimaginative. You can't even come up with a creative insult or funny riposte. There's nothing wrong with going through life lacking logic skills and being nonlinear, but you're not even creative.
What you're saying to everyone is that you lack the analytical reasoning skills to reply to Lamont with a logical argument.
What's even sadder is that the grammatical miscues you're trying so hard to point out out are vague at best. 'Some' logically refers to one maybe all, so the phrase "some people's attitudes" may have been referring to one person.
You're also unimaginative. You can't even come up with a creative insult or funny riposte. There's nothing wrong with going through life lacking logic skills and being nonlinear, but you're not even creative.